We can't say anything concrete about how James Paterson voted on ending immigration detention on Nauru
How James Paterson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should close its Nauru Regional Processing Centre and stop all Nauru-based processing of people's claims for asylum
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which James Paterson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson on this policy.
| Division | James Paterson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Feb 2023, 5:15 PM – Senate Motions - Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country |
absent | No |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which James Paterson could have attended.
| Division | James Paterson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
8th Mar 2023, 10:01 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
15th Feb 2018, 11:56 AM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - End offshore detention |
absent | Yes |
20th Jun 2017, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Close Nauru and Manus Is. detention centres |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
James Paterson has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.